Re: RFC: BOGONs over BGP, adding some ranges

[Tom Beecher]

>
> I would like to make an effort to debogon 240/4 at least, or have an
> authorized experiment to at least determine how fully bogon'd it is.
>

It would not be appropriate to 'debogon' 240/4 based on the currently
accepted definition, because it is space not allocated to an RIR. I know
that you are part of the groups who wish to have the status of 240/4
changed, but until that happens, the reference to it in bogon tools should
not change.



On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:57 PM Dave Taht  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:17 AM James Shank  wrote:
> >
> > Dear NANOG!
> >
> > As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated
> > BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades
> > at this point. For more information about this service, please see
> > https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon.
> >
> > Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based
> > feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed.
> > For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that
> > are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the
> > below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on
> > these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution.
> >
> > The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising:
> > 0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already
> > advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.)
> > 127/8
> > 224/4
> > 240/4
> >
> > Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our
> > advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion.
>
> I would like to make an effort to debogon 240/4 at least, or have an
> authorized experiment to at least determine how fully bogon'd it is.
>
> Some recent data about amazon and verizon:
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/author/qasim-lone/2404-as-seen-by-ripe-atlas/
>
> One question for me is how many folks rely on regular bogon updates
> such as yours. There are others.
>
> > So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback,
> > pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be
> > dragons!" sentiments.
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86!
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > James
> >
> > --
> > *James Shank*
> > Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist
> > e: jsh...@cymru.com
> > o: +1 847 378-3365
> >
>
>
> --
> FQ World Domination pending:
> https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>

Re: RFC: BOGONs over BGP, adding some ranges

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 10:17 AM James Shank  wrote:
>
> Dear NANOG!
>
> As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated
> BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades
> at this point. For more information about this service, please see
> https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon.
>
> Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based
> feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed.
> For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that
> are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the
> below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on
> these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution.
>
> The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising:
> 0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already
> advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.)
> 127/8
> 224/4
> 240/4
>
> Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our
> advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion.

I would like to make an effort to debogon 240/4 at least, or have an
authorized experiment to at least determine how fully bogon'd it is.

Some recent data about amazon and verizon:

https://labs.ripe.net/author/qasim-lone/2404-as-seen-by-ripe-atlas/

One question for me is how many folks rely on regular bogon updates
such as yours. There are others.

> So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback,
> pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be
> dragons!" sentiments.
>
> Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86!
>
> Cheers!
>
> James
>
> --
> *James Shank*
> Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist
> e: jsh...@cymru.com
> o: +1 847 378-3365
>


-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: RFC: BOGONs over BGP, adding some ranges

[Glenn Kelley]

I would love to see this via BGP personally
Not sure of anything that it could cause  - and folks could filter out
something if needed/required



*Glenn S. Kelley, *I am a Connectivity.Engineer
Text and Voice Direct:  740-206-9624


a Division of CreatingNet.Works 
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received
this email by mistake, please notify Glenn Kelley, the sender, immediately
and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.


On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:15 PM James Shank  wrote:

> Dear NANOG!
>
> As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated
> BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades
> at this point. For more information about this service, please see
> https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon.
>
> Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based
> feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed.
> For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that
> are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the
> below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on
> these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution.
>
> The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising:
> 0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already
> advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.)
> 127/8
> 224/4
> 240/4
>
> Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our
> advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion.
>
> So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback,
> pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be
> dragons!" sentiments.
>
> Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86!
>
> Cheers!
>
> James
>
> --
> *James Shank*
> Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist
> e: jsh...@cymru.com
> o: +1 847 378-3365
>
>

Re: RFC: BOGONs over BGP, adding some ranges

[James Shank]

Hi John!

Thanks for the comments!

If you're in Hollywood for N86, perhaps we can pour one our for 
multicast together... ;)


Cheers!

James

On 8/30/22 4:21 PM, John Kristoff wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:15:40 -0400
James Shank  wrote:


224/4

If any were to cause a problem, I'd think this is the one that would be
most likely.  While inter-domain IP multicast is practically dead and
so the impact might not be so great (sorry multicast-wg and mboned
friends), there may be pockets of RP and link-local and site-local
GLOP-like things (e.g., for system imaging) things that I could imagine
might break.  Then again, break it, break it in a million little pieces,
ip.idr-multicast.die.die.die! :-)

John


--
*James Shank*
Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist
e: jsh...@cymru.com
o: +1 847 378-3365

Re: RFC: BOGONs over BGP, adding some ranges

[John Kristoff]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:15:40 -0400
James Shank  wrote:

> 224/4

If any were to cause a problem, I'd think this is the one that would be
most likely.  While inter-domain IP multicast is practically dead and
so the impact might not be so great (sorry multicast-wg and mboned
friends), there may be pockets of RP and link-local and site-local
GLOP-like things (e.g., for system imaging) things that I could imagine
might break.  Then again, break it, break it in a million little pieces,
ip.idr-multicast.die.die.die! :-)

John

RFC: BOGONs over BGP, adding some ranges

[James Shank]

Dear NANOG!

As many of you know, Team Cymru runs a free service delivering updated 
BOGONS to networks around the world. We've been doing this for decades 
at this point. For more information about this service, please see 
https://www.team-cymru.com/bogon.


Recently, we've discussed internally a discrepancy between our BGP based 
feed and the other formats we deliver for our Traditional BOGONS feed. 
For historic reasons, we previously omitted delivery of some ranges that 
are BOGONS from our BGP advertisements. We are considering adding the 
below ranges back in, but want to hear feedback from the community on 
these ranges prior to advertising them, out of an abundance of caution.


The below ranges are what we are currently considering advertising:
0/8 (this one we already have concluded is safe as it is already 
advertised in our "FULL BOGONS" set.)

127/8
224/4
240/4

Note that 224/4 and 240/4 may be aggregated differently in our 
advertisement, but are broken out here to facilitate discussion.


So, fellow NANOGers, what say ye? I would love to hear your feedback, 
pro or con, well-reasoned with data points or general "argh! there be 
dragons!" sentiments.


Looking forward to seeing folks in Hollywood for N86!

Cheers!

James

--
*James Shank*
Chief Architect of Community Services and Sr. Security Evangelist
e: jsh...@cymru.com
o: +1 847 378-3365